tv [untitled] July 19, 2013 6:00pm-6:31pm PDT
that it was and it seems that that has been used on a broader publicly accessible event scale and that is what our determination found. >> and i have a question. what, what is the significant of the permit, or the appellants, argument that there are other establishments that are zoned residential with the full commercial kitchens and then she sites, sun flower and
plow and imp low >> so these properties are not zoned residential they are located in an nc 2 neighborhood zoning district that will allow new restaurant and could convert to another retail store or to a new restaurant can open up but that is a commercial strip on 18th there. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> is there public comment on this item? >> okay, step forward. >> president, how many minutes? >> three, minutes, just one speaker, three minutes. >> president and members, i have not come here on this case and i was not aware of it until i got here i am bob pass more and i worked for the planning department in 2000, and my recollection of this property was different and mr. sanchez while i support his recommendation. >> would you mind speaking into
the microphone. >> should i start over. >> no i heard. >> my recollection is that the property is more that the planning department in the early years treated more as a private club or community building and not in any way a commercial type of establishment. i don't think that it has been zoned anything other than some form of residential, before 1960. and then into the current type of zoning. and as a community building or a private club there were times that we would say, okay as an accessory, you can have a wedding there and a party and some small entertainment but it was never to be at the extent that you were moving into a full entertainment type of activity. kitchens that were attached to that were solely for serving foods for people coming to that facility and nowhere else and so any kitchen that would
produce the food that will go off the premiseses will be in violation of the planning code. i am not saying that it is a bad idea, but it would take a code amendment to allow it in the future. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, then do you have rebuttal time if you care to use it three minutes. this is like a commercial building and i think that residential got zoned over us because probably the language barrier did not, you know, particularly have anybody come down and fight for their building. and so 50 years coming out now, we really would like to have some kind of a zoning stating that we are clearly not a residential building. i think that i gave you a picture of the building. and we also one side of us is
residential. and so if there is any kind of code in the code that we can make it a small, you know, we are not here to be the culinary academy, but we would really like to have some kind of... there must be some kind of a code and also a lady got zoned for her commercial kitchen in a residential house, i think that i also gave you that as well. and so i am wondering if we can get some kind of a small zoning somewhere in the code to at least allow us to do those thank you. >> are you i am not sure that we understand what you your intent there is. are you saying that you want to have a commercial kitchen that you can rent out just the kitchen itself to be able to cook food for off site? >> very, very small groups of people mom and pop operations,
very small. right now, we rented out to you know, like different weddings and things like that. and we would probably get a lot more use out of it and a lot less damage to the hall, if we just rented it out a couple of times a month for a mom and pop that they can go ahead and do that. very, very small. like i said, i am not the culinary academy and don't want to be, but somewhere in the code there must be some code that could allow us to do that. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, are you finished? >> thank you. >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department i don't have much to add, other than to note that this has been residential zoning since at least 1978 prior to that it was
rf 3, from 60 to 78 and prior to that i think that mr. pass more noted it was residential and maybe a second residential zoning district. and but there is nothing in the current planning code that would allow that kind of new commercial use there no matter how small, it is a residential zoning district. and it would require a you know, from what i can tell at this point, a planning code change and certainly we can look at that kind of question further with the appellant, but i don't see a way at this point to allow that new additional use. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> and it seems pretty clear to me that there is not much wiggle room here. and they seem to have affirmed that, and we would like to make
the accommodation of how it will benefit the hall and i don't see how we have any options. and i agree with commissioner lazarus, and although i did attend the parties there in the 70s. i can attest to that. but, so she can cook as long as she is holding a party that is kind of how it is interpreted at this point. but i do agree with commissioner lazarus that we would have to have a complete new designation. >> right. >> okay. >> all right. >> i entertain the motion. >> i will move to deny the appeal and up hold the letter of determination on the basis that it is letter was compliant with current planning code. >> it could be that the zoning administrator did not error. >> that is fine. >> okay. >> thank you.
>> we have a motion from the vice president to up hold this zoning administrator letter of determination on the basis that he did not err or abuse his discretion. >> on that motion, commissioner fung. >> aye. >> president hwang. >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0, and this letter is upheld on that basis. >> we need a [break] >> all right. welcome back to the july 17, 2013, board of appeals, we have dealt with 12, and we will call
13, 13-062.twin peaks eastside neighborhood alliance, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval.70 crestline drive. protesting the issuance on may 15, 2013, to shamus naughten / dolmen property group llc, permit to erect a building (4-story, 4-unit residential building with 1,420sf of ground floor area). application no. 2009/08/25/5545s. for hearin tonight. and we will start with the appellants. >> please step forward and you have seven minutes and thank you for your patience this evening. >> good evening, i'm donald bait man, co-chair of the twin peaks east side alliance, and with me at the podium is agular, and we are both residents, and for the last 18 and 30 years, and it is comprised of more than 130 members all of whom who have signed the statements would have voiced the opposition to the over development that will result from the approval of the
subject building application and permit for lot subdivision and new construction70 crest line drive in the early 60s when this san gnedand devel city planners at the time attempted to density of the developmby requiring the developer to integrate the 14 small spaces between the series of multiunit buildings and this was done to provide the relief to the march of concrete that asends the garden side drive and on the upper east slopes of the twin peaks neighborhood, robert pass moore a zoning administrator was an eye witness to the fact that these open spaces were not accidental or left over plots but were intentionally integrated and established as the condition of approval by the city for the vista san francisco development. he is here tonight as you know to attest to those facts. you have also seen his letter to the board found in exhibit d
in the brief and that rekoupts that history and voices his opposition to the project under appeal. in exhibit e, we have provided a copy of the original map. >> please turn that over. >> thanks. >> dated october, 1962, with that map it references a lan an stems th the wason both the planning department and both the city engineer's office on sheet one of the subdivision map the parties have or holding record title interest in the subdivision state that they do here by agree to plant and maintain the association to maintain the landscaping in the land subdivided in the accordance with that planting plan, and we contend that this planting plan that the two city agencies now have been unable to locate would show that the 14 planned open green spaces were a part of that plan and therefore serves to demonstrate
that those places were intent to remain open and as they indeed have for the last 50 years. and the proposal to wedge a 5 story over garage four unit building into the small pie shaped piece of the subdivided lot at 70 crest line places 6 large windows in the northern facade into a five-foot wide air shaft. in the report dated november 19th, the recommended denial of the project, and the proximity and mass of the new structure will severely restrict the light and air to the units whose windows overlook the green space, the windows that will be obstructed are the only source of light of air in the rooms, they maintain that the other 13 planned open spaces will be more difficult if not impossible to develop. and therefore, the proposed construction would not set a
precedent for additional loss from space. and we strongly disagree with that assessment and all except two of the open green spaces are actually larger than the subject site. and several do have access to lateral right-of-ways or the 13 are largely large corner spaces in the block of the two streets and are owned by one party as are an additional five of the other spaces owned by one party. and all of the 13 spaces are suitable for the development. and therefore, the proposed project will indeed set an unwanted precedent for additional similar development and loss of green space in the community as stated in the project report, november 19, 2012, our exhibit b. >> our appeal is first and foremost request that you deny the permit for the reasons cited in the brief and discussed here tonight and as noted in the brief if you are
inclined to up hold this permit that you defer your decision until the sponsor has secured the approval by the city, we have valid concerns that the sponsor may attempt to build the structure without subdivision approval. and the sponsor stated to us in late may that he need not secure the approval before beginning construction as he contends that the subject permit will allow the construction on the existing lot. we do not agree with that position and neither does the planning department according to the assurances given to us by the zoning administrator. and further the sponsor's possible will in effect deny us the due process of the appeal rights regarding the subprocess, because the appeal will be moot if a building is already standing or even under construction because the planning department has stated that the subject division approval must be secured and the sponsor has caused his own delay business not applying for
the subdivision until this past monday of this week. please also note that the planning department eer report notes that the structure will be limited to the dry months of may to october to protect the integrity of the sites steep hill sides and normal processing times for the department applications submitted for the past month could be expected to take anywhere from 30 to 75 days. and therefore, with construction time estimated to require at least 3 and a half months, construction could not be initiated in any case before may 2014. and therefore, if the board were to defer its decision until the subdivision approval is occurred, no undo or additional delay will be generated. in summary, the proposed building is astraktive and cleverly designed and it does
not belong on the site where the development is proposed. we ask that the board respect the original decent and intent of san francisco and the wishes of the community's residents and the recommendation for the denial of the planning department and the existing resident of the last 50 years, that has retained the open spaces by your denial of this permit this evening, thank you. >> mr. bait man. >> are there ccnrs for this subdivision? >> could you explain that term to me. >> are there any covenants that were established for all of the properties within all of the lots within this subdivision. >> not that we are aware of. but i am sure that mr. pass more may be able to shed the history on that since he was there at the time. and as the sponsor has stated as far as we found there is nothing that we found codified presenting this development and it is more a matter of the intent and the initial design of the planned community.
>> okay >> how long has that been empty. >> yes. >> how long has that been open? >> since it was built in 165. >> okay. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the project sponsor now. >> good evening commissioners i am the architect that designed this building. and this one. >> well, >> yeah. >> okay. >> the site, the site is when the san francisco neighborhood, and at the base of twin peaks.
it is a triangle portion of the existing building parcel that it is unue hat it is adjacent t the... i don't like, i can't do the computer. but if it is adjacent to mr. lane, a public right-of-way that throughout the steps connects the lower area of the city with twin peaks and going through the neighborhood. the project is a four unit entry building. and it is designed to fit harmoniously within the urban fabric of the existing neighborhood. it is one of the planning commissioners said during the public hearing, this project quickly inserts a new building in a compatible and enhancing and respecting manner, matching the buildings in a contemporary way. the commissioners voted 5-1 to
take it and approve the project. >> the proposed building matches the scale, and the stepping of the configuration and the height and the set backs, and the lines of the existing buildings. >> it provides the range of units for the diverse type of families from one bedroom and two bedroom apartments to four bedroom town house and at the lower density of the existing buildings and it complies with the residential guidelines and does not require any variance. in adding less than 1 percent of the existing number of units that exist in the neighborhood, it certainly there is not result in over development. and the contrary, it proposes a sustain able infield development model, the project also provides an inviting and usable safe open space by landscape and lighting and maintaining the steps in the existing right-of-way. and then in 19, well, wow, the
19 feet wide public space is framed by the buildings in a similar way than the other two segments of this delaying and there are further down the hill. >> and in approaching down hill, this is a view from park side, and it shows that the project feeds harmoniously on the existing buildings, and the green and contemporary atmosphere and from the twin peaks trail, the project has no impact on the views and adds minimally to the existing walls to the san francisco. >> and these three, these three d model shows how the design concept are driven from the
active open space, and three of the four units of the direct access from the steps. and the windows and encourage the neighbors to the visitors interaction and the eyes on the street to enhance the safety. especially when it gets dark. this is the open space, as it exists now. at present, it is neither maintained or landscaped and you have seen accessible beyond the steps and it is framed by the black line walls which gives the feeling of walking through a left over space and the windows on the wall of the existing building are minimal openings and less than 1 percent of the wall area. and the proposed building will be five feet away from those
windows and that is true, and if as required by code, for light and air and fire safety. it is a typical urban condition. and the reviews will be reviews, but those are the views from a single room in each apartment. all of the other rooms of the apartment retaining the unobstructed city views and bay views. this project is not only about building housing on a vacant private parcel it also contributes to transform the right-of-way and maintain the public garden and the project is a spot for the sensitive design and it will provide diversified housing and the existing public space and enhancing connectivity to the twin peaks. and it is a positive addition in the spirit of the san
francisco general plan. and for these reasons we respectfully request that the board up hold this permit as is. with no new conditions, and in accordance to the city planning commission, almost unanimous position, thank you very much. >> mr. sanchez. >> could you switch off the projecter? >> thank you. >> thank you, scott sanchez the planning department, the subject property is located within an rm 1 and that is a residential mixed low density unit. and the subject building permits application and it is located in just of the san francisco development that was
developed in 1965, and there is a little bit of a development history on this lot, and in 1998. they sought a subdivision and a variance to split off the lot and at the time it had required a variance for the subdivision and that bas heard by the zoning administrator at the time mr. pass moore who is here this evening and i understand at the time he was inclined to deny the variance application and that application was withdrawn and there were no development proposals on the site until 2009 when this building permit application was submit and this seeks to have a five story, four unit building of the subject property and also to subdivide it however they have broken out the lot in this case does not trigger a variance and it triggered a variance for the frontage but they have widened it at the front so it will no longer trigger a variance requirement. >> the department reviewed this and it was presentsed with the history of development here, and also concerns about the
pattern of development and the concerns that were expressed in 98 about this being a required open space. and we could not find any evidence of it being required or conditioned to be maintained as open space. in the project that was proposed was code complying and it met all of the planning requirements and the department did have concerns about the development and in hearing some of the development history and the concerns from the previous 1998, we reviewed this and did recommend a disapproval on this item to the planning commission and so we did the neighborhood notice for this last summer, july and august. and that was for a staff initiated a discretionary review where we took the item to the planning commission and we noticed this in the 311 notice that was going to be a staff dr and at the hearing we recommended this approval of the item and it has been stated for the reasons stated by the appellant it was a concern about how it will effect the pattern of the open space in the area and the effect on the
views from the open space across the street. at the hearing the planning commission did vote 5-1 to over turn our recommendation and to actually approve the permit and it should be noted that it is a code complying project and we were recommending this approval because of our belief that it was not compatible development. the planning commission cited that it was the housing is providing family sized units and that the design was appropriate and they did review the project and did not have the issues with the architecture that is proposed here. and so with that, it would recommend that board of appeals up hold the plan's commission decision to allow the subject project and it has been noted that the subdivision as a bit of a concern in terms of timing and that the project itself is not code complying without the subdivision and the subdivision was submitted on monday and i did meet with the appellant and
discuss this with them and we would not want to see the project constructed without the subdivision being approved and that would be appealable to the board of supervisors. and this is a site permit and so this permit does not actually authorize construction. and so our plan and that discuss for the department building inspection is we review addendum which were the actual official drawings that get submitted with the site permit and we would hold any addendum until the review was completed and finalized for the subdivision. and i think that we would definitely don't want to get into the situation of having a building built where it does not meet the code if they don't have the subdivision, if it is ultimately for some reason not sought, or not granted by the board of supervisors if it is appealed that would be very much a concern of ours. >> so that completes my presentation, and i am available for any questions
thank you. >> i have a question. were you concerned about this being a precedent setting development? given that there are these staggered wedges of green throughout the development? >> yes, it is part of the character of this development of this san francisco development and that is even the loss of one was not appropriate. and i have not reviewed all of the other laws to see if in fact they are developable and i know that this is a point of contention with the permit holder saying that none of the other lots could be developed and the appellants have done the research and believed that they could be developed and but this does stand on its own. and you know the planning commission approved this because finding that is appropriate infield development and providing the needed housing for the city. >> scott, could you, tell me the timing on the subdivision again? and that process? >> the subdivision which was filed with the department of
public works on monday will be routed to the city agencies including the planning department and review that and make a determination of code compliance and respond back. and that decision... >> to the board of supervisors. >> it is appealable to the board of supervisors. >> and then, so until, unless and until that is process is over, there will be no construction. >> right. >> because we would work with ddi and process any addendum which we will have to review any way and we have instructed the staff who worked on this that we should hold it until such time that the subpoena division is approved because it would be inappropriate for the construction to commence >> none has been submitted. >> no. >> do the planning commission minutes going back to 65.
>> yes. >> and any research on what the minutes said here? >> i don't know that. because we would need a date of action and it would be a little bit of a needle in a hay stack and they did their best to research and i think that this was a question in 98 as well. this was not the first time that this matter has been researched and i think in 98 and in the most recent research that we have not been able to locate any conditions of approval that would limit the development here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, i don't have much to add, and apart from the fact that the site permit was issued on may 15th and as you know suspended by ddi, or the board of appeals on the 30th of may. i checked today and there is no addendum schedule that has been created and so therefore none has been received by ddi and so no